Hanson, Noonan and the Neocon Kool-Aid

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush admits that he is often called a Kool-Aid drinker when he tells us that the war in Iraq is already won. Like many of the Busheviks, he found the aftermath of the recent Samarra Shrine bombing came as a complete surprise to his version of reality. He and many others had bought the myth that only a radical few in Iraq were fighting a sectarian feud between Shia and Sunni and that three democratic elections and a strengthening Iraqi security presence had overcome any extremist attempts to send Iraq the way of Lebanon or the former Yugoslavia.

It's predictable, then, that Noonan and his ilk believe the Left was unpleasantly shocked by the apparent defusing of a nascent "hot" civil war in the last week and that he Left would love a full-scale civil war to break out in Iraq just so that we could blame Bush. They had bought the myth; had their fingers in their ears about anything the Left said; written the entire Left off as Bush-hating from hippy peaceniks who didn't understand anything military, martial or warlike. Buying the myth blinded them to all information that conflicted with their reality picture. Had they not been so blinded then they might have noticed that progressives have been writing about the urgent need to curb sectarian militias in Iraq since the beginning.

Neither the aftermath of Samarra nor the subsequent scramble by both Iraqi and American vested interests to calm things down some again came as any kind of surprise to those on the Left who had been paying attention. We had come to the same conclusions as supressed assessments by U.S. intelligence agencies, now being revealed, who said that "the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops." We also agreed with those agencies and many others when they warned that sectarian divides and perceived ethnic bias would create a recipe for disaster eventually.

In Congress this Tuesday, Army Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that:

"So long as Sunni Arabs are denied access to resources and lack a meaningful presence in government, they will continue to resort to violence," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We believed all along that violence and instability in Iraq wasn't simply the purvue of "the terrorists and the Baathists". It was the Busheviks who believed George Bush when he spoke those words - and it was the Busheviks who were surprised by Samarra's aftermath.

Noonan says he may well be a Kool-Aid drinker (although I'm sure he doesn't think he is) but then asks us to give more credence to one of the biggest propagandizers for both the Bushevik cause in general and the Iraqi adventure in particular - Victor Davis Hanson. Noonan is right, Hanson is no drinker of Kool-Aid. Hanson is a manufacturer and purveyor of the stuff. Noonan cites Hanson's impressive list of credentials as a historian, writer and thinker as reasons to believe Hanson's words. Yet there is no mention of the equally or even more impressive resumes of William Buckley or Fukayama, both of whom have now recanted their noeconservatism and their support for the neocon project in Iraq. There is no exhortation to listen to other great minds from across the political spectrum, all with equally impressive backgrounds, such as William Lind, Noam Chomsky, Col. David Hackworth or John Hope Franklin who have said all along that the war in Iraq was the wrong war fought the wrong way.

Each one of these cited above is, as Noonan describes Hanson, "not an un-educated man making uninformed judgements. He might be wrong (as all of us can be, no matter how well informed), but please do not just dismiss him - listen to what he has to say." What is good for the goose is good for the gander, Mark - why don't you go give as much credence to these people as you wish us to give to Hanson? Each might be right or wrong, in greater or lesser degrees. I advocate reading them all and making your own mind up.

But let us look at Hanson on his merits, from his Opinion Journal article today. Let us watch him hedge his bets and his words as he writes:

there appeared at least the semblance of reconciliation that may soon presage a viable coalition government.

"Appeared"..."semblance"..."may." Hanson hardly seems convinced of his own thinking here. But he gets stronger.

Americans more than the Iraqis needed such advice for calm to quiet our own frenzy.

A throwaway phrase to give away how much Hanson actually cares about the lives lost - up to 1300 by some counts - in the aftermath of the Golden Dome's destruction.

Victor, I have to tell you that Americans didn't need those words of calm as much as those who would have died in Iraq had they not been uttered. To suggest otherwise is insulting not only to the Iraqi people but to the coalition servicemen putting their own lives in danger to stem those killings.

In any case, Hanson's entire argument that the danger of civil war is now past is not supported by current events, as the killings continue. Nor is it supported by the Iraqi government itself, who have warned that another incident on the scale of Samarra would indeed tip the whole nation into sectarian civil war.

Next Hanson tells us:

True, the Sunni Triangle, unlike southern Iraq and Kurdistan, is often inhospitable to the forces of reconstruction--but hardly lost to jihadists and militias as we are told. There is a disturbing sameness to our acrimony at home, as we recall all the links in this chain of America hysteria from the brouhaha over George Bush's flight suit to purported flushed Korans at Guantanamo Bay. Each time we are lectured that the looting, Abu Ghraib, the embalming of Uday and Qusay, the demeaning oral exam of Saddam, unarmored Humvees, inadequate body armor or the latest catastrophe has squandered our victory, the unimpressed U.S. military simply goes about what it does best--defeating the terrorists and training the Iraqi military to serve a democratic government. They stay focused in this long war, while our pundits prepare the next controversy.

Shall we take each part in turn?

The idea that Southern Iraq is "hospitable" to the forces of reconstruction is hanging by a shaky nail - and that nail is held in place only by the power of Shiite clerics like Sistani and Sadr. In the North, the Kurds will cooperate as long as they are being allowed to create their own state - remove that ability and the cooperation will end. In both cases, Iraqi security forces are thoroughly compromised by the militias who have infiltrated them and are now gaining valuable training from US and UK soldiers. We told you all so months and years ago, but you chose not to listen.

As for the litany of things done wrong, I doubt even Hanson could convincingly argue that each hasn't made those soldiers tasks harder or more dangerous in some way. The soldiers do what they do, what they have always done - shut up and soldier - but surely when a little thought or foresight could prevent something happening which makes their lives tougher it is incumbent upon the rest of us to point it out and ask that it be rectified or similiar situations be avoided in future. To do otherwise isn't helping the troops, it is treating them like cannon fodder, treating them like mushrooms. Just how heartless are you, Mr. Hanson?

And of course the recent Zogby poll illustrates just how much Hanson is in denial when he writes:

If many are determined to see the Iraqi war as lost without a plan, it hardly seems so to 130,000 U.S. soldiers still over there. They explain to visitors that they have always had a design: defeat the Islamic terrorists; train a competent Iraqi military; and provide requisite time for a democratic Iraqi government to garner public support away from the Islamists.

Only 23% of those who are serving in Iraq think they should stay "as long as needed". Only 24% think they are there to establish a democracy. Indeed, 48% are hazy on what the current mission is and while 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.".

I would not dream of speaking for the troops on the ground - other figures in the Zogby poll such as the 35% who think I'm treasonous because I advocate withdrawal right now suggest I don't understand every single one well enough to speak for them. However, these figures show that Hanson has no mandate to speak on their behalf either. He is stating what isn't true, knowing it isn't true, and hoping his readers believe it anyway. Making the Kool-Aid for others to consume.

And that really is the point about Victor Davis Hanson. Like Buckley and Fukayama he has seen the reports, he has the same insiders track on information and unless he is utterly undeserving of his plaudits he has probably come to the same reluctant conclusions. However, were Hanson to recant, as the others have done, he would lose the position he holds amongst the neocons and Busheviks in the same way they have done. With it would go prestige and revenue. Thus he is stuck between hedging his bets and sticking to his traditional line.

Victor Davis Hanson doesn't seem to have the courage of a Buckley or the intellectual integrity of a Fukayama. This is the new thinking leadership of the Bushevik movement.